California Voter Foundation

February 2008 Presidential Primary Election

Proposition 91 - Transportation Funds.

Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

NOTE: The proponents of Proposition 91 have stated that the passage of Proposition 1A in November 2006 satisfied the goals of Proposition 91 and that Proposition 91 is no longer needed.

Summary

Prohibits certain motor vehicle fuel sales and use taxes that are earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund, from being retained in the General Fund. Currently such taxes may be retained if Governor issues a proclamation, a special statute is enacted by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, repayment occurs within three years, and certain other conditions are met.

Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of such vehicle fuel taxes retained in General Fund from 7/1/03 to 6/30/08. Currently repayment is generally required by 6/30/16.
Changes how and when General Fund borrowing of certain transportation funds is allowed.

Fiscal Impact: Increases stability of state funding for highways, streets, and roads and may decrease stability of state funding for public transit. May reduce stability of certain local funds for public transit.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

YES: A “YES” vote on this measure means: The state would no longer be able to suspend the transfer of gasoline sales tax revenue from the General Fund to transportation. In addition, the state would be able to loan specified transportation funds, potentially including certain local transportation funds, to the General Fund for essentially short-term cash flow purposes only. The state, however, may be able to loan to the General Fund, without express time limitation for repayment, certain state funds for public transit.

NO: A “NO” vote on this measure means: The state would still be able to suspend, under certain conditions, the transfer of gasoline sales tax revenue from the General Fund to transportation. Additionally, the state would continue to be able, under certain conditions, to loan specified transportation funds to the General Fund for up to three fiscal years.

Full Text of Proposition 91/Proposed Law - (PDF)

Official Campaign Web Sites and Contact Information

Yes on Proposition 91 – (none)

No on Proposition 91 – (none)

Who Signed the Ballot Arguments

Yes on Proposition 91

Mark Watts, Executive Director, Transportation California
Jim Earp, Executive Director, California Alliance for Jobs
No on Proposition 91

(no argument against Proposition 91 was filed)

News Articles

Backers now urge voting against Prop 91, by Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2008.

Follow the Money

No contributions have been raised for or against Proposition 91.